"[Rome] pretends to aspire to peace but unerringly generates war…there
was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in
danger…Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors…the whole world
was pervaded by a host of enemies." ~ Joseph Schumpeter (1918)

Some readers will barely finish reading the title of this piece before the
ad hominem attacks commence. They’ll surely label me a Putin crony or a China
apologist before reaching the second paragraph. Such is life in this age of
militarism, hyper-partisanship and American hysteria. Sure, Russia has been
accused
of meddling in the 2016 elections; and, yes, China is flexing
its muscles in the South China Sea and investing heavily across Eurasia and
Africa. Maybe its even fair to consider Russia and China as competitors on the
world stage. Still, none of that justifies war or the threat of war.
The U.S. has seen darker days (like two world wars and a Cold War nuclear showdown)
and there’s little cause for panic. Instead, the rhetoric of the Pentagon’s
National Defense Strategy
(NDS), which refers to China and Russia as "revisionist powers," reads
like 1950s anti-Soviet-alarmism.

President Trump lacks anything close to a consistent foreign policy doctrine
or dogma, which, well, can be both a good and a bad thing. His generals, on
the other hand – Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster – are all hyper-interventionists
bent on perpetual American exceptionalist hegemony. And, for these true believers,
there are only two countries standing in the way of a new Pax Americana: China
and Russia. Seriously, read the NDS summary and you’ll see what I mean. Look,
I don’t know exactly what occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia in
2016 – honestly, no one does. But for me, the Trump team’s hardline defense
rhetoric and combative posture towards the twin Eurasian powers of China and
Russia, has never jived with the MSNBC-Russia gate-collusion narrative. Of course,
I could be wrong.

What’s certain, however, is this: neither Russia or China have the capacity
nor the intent for global conquest. These are nuclear-armed regional titans,
and, at least in China’s case, have real economic clout. What they’re decidedly
not is super villains. All the alarmism surrounding Russia and China
(and North Korea and Iran, for that matter) serves
none but the military-industrial complex, the arms dealers, and hawkish politicians
who bully their way to power through the force of inflated threats. The US military
– no how much we thank the troops and pour on the faux adulation – is already
overstretched,
fighting several small, indecisive wars simultaneously across the Greater Middle
East. The soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors can’t possibly forward deploy
– indefinitely – to balance against Russian and Chinese invasions that just
aren’t coming. That’s just madness…absurdity…the specialty of post-9/11 America.

A Stroll in the Other Guys’ Shoes

Humor me with a quick thought experiment: imagine a foreign power
possessing the strongest military in the world set up bases in Canada, Mexico,
and on various Caribbean Islands; that its ships cruised the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Gulf of Mexico with regularity; that it forward-deployed nuclear weapons
in Central America; that it built an alliance with every power in North America
besides us and conducted regular military exercises along the Rio Grande
and in the Puget Sound. How might the United States respond? I’d bet on all
out war, but hey, who knows.

The point is, that’s the way the world looks when viewed from Moscow or
Beijing. This shouldn’t imply that Putin or Xi Jinping are swell guys without
skeletons in their proverbial closets. It’s just the stark reality. Only most
Americans are too self-obsessed and blinded by self-righteousness to walk a
mile in Russian or Chinese shoes. We’re special, we’re exceptional – it’s the
other guy that’s (always) wrong.

The Great White Hype: Inflating the Russian Bear

Russia ain’t no angel. Since 2008, it has fought a war with neighboring Georgia,
annexed the Crimea, and not-so-surreptitiously intervened in Ukraine. See, but
it isn’t so simple. Foreign affairs unfold in manifold gray areas and Uncle
Sam doesn’t have such a clean track record itself!

Context matters! Remember, that all the above actions occurred directly
adjacent to Russia’s borders, in its neighborhood. Georgia (backed by
NATO and the US) wasn’t so innocent and helped provoke
the Russian bear at the outset of war. The people of Crimea wanted
to join Russia and only became Ukrainian property due to a deal
struck by Premier Khrushchev in the 1950s. In the Ukraine, the US appears
to have colluded with the pro-Western opposition to overthrow an elected
government long before the Russians intervened. Most significantly, despite
promises
made by then President George H.W. Bush, the (by definition anti-Russian) NATO
military alliance has spread eastward right to Moscow’s borders.

Speaking of borders, Russia has fourteen countries touching its
territory on land alone. Russia is encircled by adversaries and feels deeply
threatened. And, despite an impressive arsenal of nukes, Russia is weak. Its
essentially a petro-state that’s hostage to the fluctuation of oil and gas prices,
boasting – at best – an economy about
the size of Spain or Italy. Russian men also suffer from a serious alcohol,
suicide, and life expectancy
crisis. White ethnic Russians are losing demographic ground to a growing Muslim
population, which spooks Putin and company. Their Defense spending is about
a
tenth of the United States and less
than half that of a British-German-French combo. Russian tanks and armored
vehicles appear daunting next to Latvia, but it still has a GDP just 11%
that of the European Union and lacks the air or sea lift capacity to project
power globally. Russia has one aircraft carrier. The US has (depending
on the source)
about 20 of various sizes.

The prognosis: Russia is, at best, playing a losing hand with remarkable
skill. Western Europe is not in danger of conquest and the US homeland is quite
safe. The Russian military is more likely to get bogged down fighting Islamists
in the Caucasus or Mid East than to invade Poland. It may nibble at the edges
of its eastern and southern rim but has neither the capacity or intent to assert
itself globally. Besides, if forced to do so, a European coalition can and will
easily check Russia’s most aggressive moves along its borders.

The Asian Invasion: Inflating the Chinese Dragon

China’s no stranger to controversy either. It claims a slew of sandy islands
in the South China Sea and bullies smaller neighbors economically and at sea.
It’s constructing infrastructure for a trade route through Central and South
Asia that will only increase its economic clout. Still, some perspective is
in order. The South China Sea is essentially China’s version of the Caribbean,
a sea which the US Navy has dominated for some 200 years, often through Marine
Corps interventions and CIA-inspired coups. This is China’s backyard, and they’ve
got a population over 1 billion, with the #1 or #2 world economy. Is it so crazy
to expect they’d be a major player in East Asia? Over time, the US will either
have to accept this and seek mutually beneficial coexistence, or, otherwise,
fight a potentially cataclysmic war, which, no one would really win (especially
when the global economy collapses and nukes begin-a-flying).

China, too, has fourteen land neighbors (the US has two) – many of
them hostile. Russia, historically, is not a natural ally and the two fought
serious border clashes during the 1960s. A coalition of maritime neighbors,
allied with the US Navy, are actively contesting those islands in the South
China Sea. Sure, China could punish them with sanctions, but – since their economies
are inextricably linked – would also hurt itself in the process.

China’s military spending is still one-third
that of the US, and even smaller if one includes powerful US regional partners
like Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia. For all the fear of its navy
turning the Western Pacific into a "Chinese lake," it still has asingle
aircraft carrier. It’s local (US-allied) neighbors have quite a few more; Japan
has four; India and Australia two each; and even South Korea matches China’s
one! Admittedly, due to Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) missile technology
(which China has heavily invested in), aircraft carriers are no longer the be
all, end all, of naval power. Still, if a state seeks to project power globally – as we’re told China intends to do – its going to need more than one old,
leaky, former Russian carrier.

China, like Russia, also has a future demographic
problem, mainly due to its long standing "one child policy"
and low birthrate. It also faces a natural US ally with a growing
population, economy, and military on its southwest border: India. All those
inconveniences are likely to keep China busy for at least a generation or two.

The prognosis: China’s economic and military might are expanding.
Still, it has nowhere near the global reach of the United States, and its economy
is far too interdependent with America to risk a war of expansion. They’ll eventually
become the big boy on the block in their own neighborhood (just like we are
in the Gulf of Mexico!) and take their inevitable place among the major powers.
None of that requires, or could even be avoided by, a catastrophic war. China
isn’t coming for California, except, perhaps, to collect some debts.

Let us review, then: Putin is a nasty guy and probably a killer; XI is centralizing
power in his authoritarian single party system. Putin wants to regain some of
Russia’s (or the Soviet Union’s) former regional clout XI desires regional preeminence
in the South China Sea. This author, at least, is not a particular fan of either
strongman. There’s my disclaimer…again.

Yet even if we accept all of the above as a given, it doesn’t add up to Russian
or Chinese schemes for world conquest or global hegemony. Nor is Putin or XI
(or even Kim Jong Un) irrationally suicidal enough to actually launch a nuke
at Los Angeles. Love em or hate em, these are generally rational men seeking
national security and limited military gains at the margins of their local regions.

It is the United States, rather – you know, the "beacon of freedom" – that deploys
commandoes and military advisers to around 70% of the countries in the world.
It is the United States, and only the United States, which rings our
"adversaries" with hundreds of military bases and spends more
on Defense than most of the rest of the world combined. And, uncomfortable
though it may be, it’s the United States that often tops
international polls as the greatest threat to global peace.

Maybe the rest of the world is crazy, mistaken, and only us Americans gaze
upon this world with objective eyes. Maybe Russia, China, and a slew of other
rogue states really are bent on global empire and the US military must
police the global commons from now till eternity.

[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author,
expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S.
government.]